Vincent Carroll’s column outlining The Denver Post’s policy on publishing letters “skeptical that humans are causing climate change” is reasonable, if not responsible. Climate-change science with its innumerable, ever-changing variables lacks the precision of which most other science is capable.

That readers choose to ignore the proven and observable truth is fascinating, like a train wreck, psychologically interesting; and like any fiction, frequently creative.

Please don’t claim that the “arbiters of truth” or just “truth” ends debate, which it clearly doesn’t; just give truth its due. When the diminishing biosphere and the end of life on Earth as we know it are the subject, it is a debate unlike any other on the pages of your newspaper. It involves some journalistic responsibility. I believe the Los Angeles Times can be proud of its stance to not print, in most cases, climate-change deniers’ letters.

Barb Coddington, Glenwood Springs

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Vincent Carroll’s column on censorship of “warming skeptics” by the Los Angeles Times was an excellent synopsis of the problem.

Wikipedia defines science as “knowledge of testable explanations and predictions.” The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has not a single climate model that predicted the current 16-year hiatus of warming. The warming theory is totally based on computer models.

In addition to a hiatus in warming, we are seeing the largest ice area in the Antarctic since satellite measurements started, and the Arctic ice cap is currently increasing at a very rapid rate.

The Soviet Union suppressed scientific openness, and suffered the consequences. Let’s hope that we do not follow suit.

William Yurth, Boulder

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Even the most lenient opinion page would be unlikely to print a letter on a medical topic from an advocate of the medieval theory of “humours,” and media outlets don’t feel obliged to allot space to arguments for such regressive or unscientific viewpoints as geocentric cosmology, a flat Earth, or the moral acceptability of slavery.

It’s in this context the the Los Angeles Times’ recent decision to reject letters denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming must be understood. While climatologists disagree about particular climate-forcing mechanisms or the relative severity of specific effects, there’s no longer any scientific argument about the human causes of climate change. Outlying views will always exist, but this is no reason to treat single dissenters as worthy of equivalent airtime or column inches — especially since, in media handling of climate issues, these contrarian opinions invariably come from the same individuals.

Warren Senders, Medford, Mass.

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Vincent Carroll apparently believes that something accepted by 95 percent of the world’s legitimate climate scientists is not only still unsettled science, but writes that climate skeptics believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “has demonstrated consistent bias in favor of alarmist interpretations.” He believes the IPCC’s findings should be balanced with the blogs of a debunked outlying climatologist, or the opinions of conservative mouthpiece Charles Krauthammer.

This speaks more to the problems of mainstream journalism than to those of the Los Angeles Times, which has decided to no longer promote climate change denial. Blind adherence to balance and presenting the “back and forth” not only provides cover to those seeking to propagate a delusional position for economic gain, but it creates the kind of false equivalencies that have resulted in a confused and muddled electorate.

The Los Angeles Times is to be commended for placing accurate reporting above pandering.

Harv Teitelbaum, Evergreen

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Sherry Ellebracht hurries past a homeless woman bedded down for the night on a cardboard mat at the corner of 16th and Blake streets on a Tuesday night earlier this month. An interesting mix of people, from suburban families to the hard-core homeless, mingle on the 16th Street Mall in downtown Denver. (Karl Gehring, The Denver Post)

Zocalo Development co-founder David Zucker’s comparison of people who are homeless to “toothpaste” shows how insensitive the business community can be toward the needs of the city’s poorest residents. Rather than see the homeless as individuals, many of whom suffer from severe and persistent mental illness and other disabilities, Zucker insults the plague of cold, hungry faces who have the nerve to invade the areas that Zocalo markets as hip and trendy to the wealthy.

It’s appalling to see someone dehumanize the most vulnerable among us that way. If only Zocalo invested in truly affordable housing, perhaps the homeless wouldn’t “squirt” into other areas of downtown. If Zucker really wants to make the city better, instead of it only “appearing” that way, he should put his organization’s money where his mouth is and build housing to help the homeless off the streets.

Marissa Latta, Greenwood Village

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Oh, that hilarious Mike Keefe has done it again — depicting small-government, live-within-our-means Tea Partyers as cross-eyed crazies. Please make him stop so I can wipe away my helpless tears of laughter! Of course, we do have a $17 trillion debt, it having increased by $7 trillion in just the last five years. That is about $120,000 per taxpayer, and it is going up every day thanks to a Congress that constantly raises the debt ceiling. Sure, that $17 trillion does not include unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare or Obamacare, and two-thirds of it is owed to foreign countries whose interests are not the same as ours. And, of course, the Tea Party is the only group actually trying to do anything about the debt and the deficit, having rallied a minority of Republicans to at least try not to rubber-stamp the latest round of borrowing.

But, as Keefe so often depicts, the Tea Partyers are the crazy ones.

Jack Tanner, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I believe Amendment 66 would be an incredible improvement to how K-12 education is funded in the state of Colorado. Requiring the state to spend money where it should be spent and allocating funds to poorer neighborhoods are much-needed initiatives within this state. Sadly, I have to vote “no” because the amendment also increases taxes.

The state already has enough money coming in, or at least that is what the legislature has expressed through its actions of late. When legislators passed a bill allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, they implied they have plenty of money to go around and had room in the budget to pay for anything. Now they are asking for more money?

The legislature needs to repeal the bill that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and cut other lower-priority programs first. Once they have shown they can do a lot with a little, I will be inclined to give them more to spend.

Brice Lingle, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

A major flaw in Amendment 66 is that it creates a constitutional requirement that every year Colorado must earmark 43 percent of all state sales, excise and income tax revenues for education.

This provision recklessly ties the hands of future legislatures and governors, taking away their ability to prioritize and balance the needs of the state in the future. What if we have more natural disasters like the floods and fires we faced this past couple of years? What about already-identified needs for repairing and replacing dangerously degraded roads and bridges? What if our elected representatives believe that more money needs to be spent on public safety or public health?

Amendment 66 is dangerous and short-sighted in dictating minimum education funding levels in the state constitution.

Anne Campbell, Monument

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

University of Colorado sophomore Kristen Smith, at right, laughs at her sophomore Bri Vendetti as she tries on a Batman mask while shopping for Halloween costumes on Oct. 17 at the Ritz costume shop in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso, The Daily Camera)

The University of Colorado at Boulder’s dean of students has asked students to not dress as geishas, “squaws,” cowboys or Indians for Halloween, lest someone be offended. What about maids, construction workers, political leaders, professional athletes, zombies? Aren’t they going to be upset, too, if someone dresses like them? Get over it!

Marie Carlson, Arvada

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Ray Halbritter speaks during the Oneida Indian Nation’s “Change the Mascot” symposium on Oct. 7 in Washington, D.C. The symposium called for the NFL’s Washington Redskins to change their name. (Carolyn Kaster, The Associated Press)

Viewed in the context of athletic competiton, the words “Lions” and “Bears” suggest power and ferocity, and “Gamecocks” and “Fightin’ Irish” confer feistiness. Along these lines, the words “Redskins” and “Indians” denote qualities to be desired — namely courage, honor and loyalty.

As a people, Native Americans were outnumbered, outarmed and out-politically machinated (lied to); and even having been subdued, not even the worst Indian haters could (honestly) say of them that they were anything but courageous, honorable and loyal. Thus, it is a worthy compliment for any athlete — as for any human being — to emulate, by name or deed, the characteristics of an “Indian” or “Redskin.”

R. Kiefer, Arvada

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

This Sunday the Denver Broncos play the Washington Name Controversy at corporate name Mile High Stadium. (Announcers have to use the correct name of the Broncos’ playing locale, but I don’t.)

Washington can keep its Redskins nickname, but Denver should change its to Caucasians.

The word “Caucasian” is derived from “Caucasus,” which is a mountain range. For Denver, which is located not far from the mountains, the nickname is particularly appropriate.

I happen to be a proud Caucasian and am in no way ashamed of my favorite football team having that nickname. I also am a former resident of Denver, and can assert that there are more Caucasians in the Mile High City than there are broncos.

If Redskins is good enough for Washington, Caucasians is good enough for Denver.

David J. Baker, Colorado Springs

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I was a member of the jury that found Robert J. Corry guilty of destroying private property. We discussed the case thoroughly and together reached a unanimous decision, based on the facts we were given, that Corry was guilty.

The criminal justice system is based on a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial and decision by a jury of one’s peers. Was a decision made by the judge before the jury was given the case to decide guilty or not guilty? And if so, why?

University of Colorado law professor Aya Gruber said, “What the judge is saying is that the jury misapprehended the facts of the law in coming to this conviction because it just wasn’t supported by the evidence.” How did we “misapprehend the facts”?

Five of us spent a day performing our civic duty. I have no idea why our decision was ignored and would like to know.

Shirley L. Ritter, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

As a teacher (non-union) in the Cherry Creek School District, I have watched with sad fascination the decline of the once fine Douglas County School District (DCSD). Both sides are using selective statistics to bolster their case, making it difficult to sort through the data and rhetoric. But one thing is becoming ever more obvious to me: good and great teachers are fleeing the DCSD, if they can.

I’ve observed dozens of teachers during my career of 20-plus years. My conclusion is that good teachers are rare and valuable; great teachers are beyond price. My district has benefited handsomely by this exodus of good and great teachers from DCSD — my school alone has picked up several gems. But it is regrettable that Cherry Creek’s gain has been at the expense of DCSD students and their families.

Until the DCSD institutes policies that make teachers feel valued, both professionally and with equitable compensation, the talent drain will continue. And finding good — let alone great — teachers is a far more daunting task than the DCSD policy makers let on.

Paul Whipple, Centennial

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Amendment 66 isn’t perfect legislation, but voters have a choice: Put the money into schools or put the money into prisons. The rest of the rhetoric doesn’t matter.

Gary Casimir, Colorado Springs

We no longer see bumper stickers asking, “How’s hope and change going for you?” Not necessary; it’s been profoundly answered.

Tom Graham, Arvada

If President Obama and his advisers pick the “best and brightest” for fixing Obamacare like they picked the best and the brightest for fixing the economy and unemployment, this country is in deep trouble.

Ralph Zrubek, Florissant

For the first time in this nation’s history, American citizens are forced to buy insurance, something they may not want. Liability insurance does not count. No one is required to own a car.

Earl Becker, Wheat Ridge

These letters were published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.